BelgoSuisse
Legend
Silver Level
Correction: you play on pokerstars because they have lower stakes available than full tilt and given your minuscule bankroll it's all you can afford.
Correction: you play on pokerstars because they have lower stakes available than full tilt and given your minuscule bankroll it's all you can afford.
Debi
Forum Admin
Administrator
W
WCFields
Rock Star
Silver Level
Irexes
Legend
Silver Level
Care to respond to this Riley?
GDRileyx
Rock Star
Platinum Level
Not really, but since you ask, I will say that he is misusing reducto ad absurdum.
I am done debating whether online poker is rigged on this site, per moderator fiat. Please see my final post on the rigged thread.
Irexes
Legend
Silver Level
Self-martydom is tricky. Banging the last nail in is the hardest part.
Don't worry no-one noticed that although you were told to stop being a fool a while back, you only actually stopped when presented with evidence you couldn't ignore.
It'll be our secret.
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
Personally it dosnt read to me like an argumet based on proof by absurdum, but if thats your take on it then thats your take.
Kasanova King
Visionary
Silver Level
How about Indian Casinos?
I've been playing at a few Indian casinos here in Southern CA and was wondering what are the chances that these card rooms are rigged? Just the other day for example, I was playing 1-2 NL and AA were dealt 3 times within 18 hands (to various people)...and about 3 hours earlier, the same thing happened. I notice this happening quite often at this particular casino...AA getting dealt way more than they should. Another very odd finding (and this happens several times every hour - I get dealt the same cards 2 hands in a row....very, very odd.....thoughts?
I've been playing at a few Indian casinos here in Southern CA and was wondering what are the chances that these card rooms are rigged? Just the other day for example, I was playing 1-2 NL and AA were dealt 3 times within 18 hands (to various people)...and about 3 hours earlier, the same thing happened. I notice this happening quite often at this particular casino...AA getting dealt way more than they should. Another very odd finding (and this happens several times every hour - I get dealt the same cards 2 hands in a row....very, very odd.....thoughts?
LuckyChippy
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
I've been dealt AA twice in a row, it happens.
L
LukeSilver
Rock Star
Silver Level
I don't know if anyone has ever actually pointed this out to people before but the idea of sites rigging hands to create bigger rake is beyond laughable its retarded.
what do you think happens in the big pots? like where do you think players go after they win/lose a lot of money?
In a world where people kept playing no matter what there swings and had an infinite bank roll to inject onto the table yes rigging for big pots would make economical sense.
In the real world it would just be stupid.
so to keep it simple lets assume we are playing $1/2 nl holdem six handed.
one Player (Luckbox) gets AA the Player (cursed) gets KK they both end up all in, assume this to be all in post flop pre flop whatever but they both end up all in. say they were sitting there with $200 each.
well Player (luckbox) has won just under $200 after rake and Player (cursed) has gone broke.
What will happen a lot of the time is they both will leave. Player (cursed) won't feel like playing anymore and Player (Luckbox) has just had a very nice session and doesn't really want to ruin it so quits whilst he is ahead. Great what does the site get from it? well as a general rule sites take 5% rake from pots but they wont take more then $5 no matter what the pot size, (I am referring to the good sites find worse? then stay away from those)
so assuming they both end all in the site makes what $5? I'm not an expert on cash table rake so my figures are approx but the point still stands.
if one or both of those players leave the site loses out. picking one tabe at random for six handed nl on poker stars the average pot is $28 and pre flop play is 27%. 85 hands per hour.
so assuming the players end up all in are bang on that average mark this means the site is losing money. why? well lets assume they played on for the next hour. 6*0.27=1.62. so there are 1.62 players to see the flop playing to see the flop every hand, obviously this is skewed by pots where there is no flop and the sites generally don't take rake if there is no flop. and sometimes there will be more then two players to the flop. to be conservative I am going to assume that the players pay 40% of the rake on average when they are in a hand. Therefore if every pot is $28 on average with 27% seeing the flop the average player here sees 22.95 flops. since sites normally round down to the nearest $1 we can expect to see $1+ rake taken every pot on average.
assuming then the bare minimum stats the average player in an hour will pay 40% $22.95 which =$9.18
so if both players stayed for another hour they could make a combined total of $18.36.
or they could watch them both leave and sing as they take $5.
Maybe I just don't understand people to much but I know when I am running bad I start playing less and often take a week or two out. I am near supernova on pokerstars the site makes $10 rake of me every hour I play and I play 35 hours a week. if i take 2 weeks out the pokerstars loses $700.
I play sit and goes not cash tables but the point stands.
the site rigging with bots so that bad players win more then they should, so they keep putting money in, are things that would if the site could get away with probably be in the sites interest, though whether they would risk it is another debate all together.
I am an open minded person the Idea of sites cheating there players or doing dodgy stuff is always possible, I sometimes feel I am winning less money then I should, I am still making an income from it though so can't be completely rigged and it might just be me, But I really do feel I lose with kk v AX a lot more then I should.
So if your going to come out with rigged theories I am open minded to some ideas, But I know the following as facts
1. it is not impossible to make a regular living from online Poker I have long term statistically significant data from myself that it is doable.
2. A large Site such as full tilt or poker stars Would never deliberately rig pots on cash tables to generate larger rake, because they would lose out in the long run, and believe me they know what they are doing. So if they are going to cheat you there going to do it in a way that makes them money not loses them money.
what do you think happens in the big pots? like where do you think players go after they win/lose a lot of money?
In a world where people kept playing no matter what there swings and had an infinite bank roll to inject onto the table yes rigging for big pots would make economical sense.
In the real world it would just be stupid.
so to keep it simple lets assume we are playing $1/2 nl holdem six handed.
one Player (Luckbox) gets AA the Player (cursed) gets KK they both end up all in, assume this to be all in post flop pre flop whatever but they both end up all in. say they were sitting there with $200 each.
well Player (luckbox) has won just under $200 after rake and Player (cursed) has gone broke.
What will happen a lot of the time is they both will leave. Player (cursed) won't feel like playing anymore and Player (Luckbox) has just had a very nice session and doesn't really want to ruin it so quits whilst he is ahead. Great what does the site get from it? well as a general rule sites take 5% rake from pots but they wont take more then $5 no matter what the pot size, (I am referring to the good sites find worse? then stay away from those)
so assuming they both end all in the site makes what $5? I'm not an expert on cash table rake so my figures are approx but the point still stands.
if one or both of those players leave the site loses out. picking one tabe at random for six handed nl on poker stars the average pot is $28 and pre flop play is 27%. 85 hands per hour.
so assuming the players end up all in are bang on that average mark this means the site is losing money. why? well lets assume they played on for the next hour. 6*0.27=1.62. so there are 1.62 players to see the flop playing to see the flop every hand, obviously this is skewed by pots where there is no flop and the sites generally don't take rake if there is no flop. and sometimes there will be more then two players to the flop. to be conservative I am going to assume that the players pay 40% of the rake on average when they are in a hand. Therefore if every pot is $28 on average with 27% seeing the flop the average player here sees 22.95 flops. since sites normally round down to the nearest $1 we can expect to see $1+ rake taken every pot on average.
assuming then the bare minimum stats the average player in an hour will pay 40% $22.95 which =$9.18
so if both players stayed for another hour they could make a combined total of $18.36.
or they could watch them both leave and sing as they take $5.
Maybe I just don't understand people to much but I know when I am running bad I start playing less and often take a week or two out. I am near supernova on pokerstars the site makes $10 rake of me every hour I play and I play 35 hours a week. if i take 2 weeks out the pokerstars loses $700.
I play sit and goes not cash tables but the point stands.
the site rigging with bots so that bad players win more then they should, so they keep putting money in, are things that would if the site could get away with probably be in the sites interest, though whether they would risk it is another debate all together.
I am an open minded person the Idea of sites cheating there players or doing dodgy stuff is always possible, I sometimes feel I am winning less money then I should, I am still making an income from it though so can't be completely rigged and it might just be me, But I really do feel I lose with kk v AX a lot more then I should.
So if your going to come out with rigged theories I am open minded to some ideas, But I know the following as facts
1. it is not impossible to make a regular living from online Poker I have long term statistically significant data from myself that it is doable.
2. A large Site such as full tilt or poker stars Would never deliberately rig pots on cash tables to generate larger rake, because they would lose out in the long run, and believe me they know what they are doing. So if they are going to cheat you there going to do it in a way that makes them money not loses them money.
P
Pafkata
Rock Star
Silver Level
I like your whole post and I have an easy explanation for KK vs Ax.. you will lose 1 out of 3 if played all-in preflop ,so statistically KK is not that great as it looks.
It turns out that people over-rate all pocket cards. A poker hand consists of 5 cards and the most important part of the gameplay is the flop!
I've always thought it is something stupid to go all-in pre-flop with KK,QQ,JJ or AK/AQ. All hands except for AA must see a flop and then decide how strong you are.
Online poker is OK, it's the game ... It's very sick!
Oh, I forgot the stats:
Ring games -> 5,321 hands -> AA dealt 28 times
Tournaments -> 3,584 hands -> AA dealt 19 times
I haven't played more than 20K total.. I recently started (July) analyzing my stats and keep record.
Last edited:
L
LukeSilver
Rock Star
Silver Level
I strongly disagree there I will rarely just shove all in with KK or QQ but not because I fear risking them having AA but because doing so is going to lose a lot of value a lot of the time.
If I have KK though barring rare exceptions if I believe I can get them all in pre flop I will try to do so. getting all in with KK v AQ or JJ is a profitable situation and one I am not going to try and avoid it.
also I play sit and goes so when people are down to less then 15BB I really don't think all ins are a mistake I think its a joke when I see A10 v 77 pre flop all in on the first blind level of a sit and go (unless its a hyper turbo sit and go but why would anyone play those)
I don't open shove with big hands but if i get re raised pre flop I will shove they turn up jj or qq or aq ak and call most of the time, I will trade that off against the times I do have to see the sick AA.
also note when the blinds get high enough I will open shove pre flop with A5 and thats not wrong.
The one thing I have always had over other people is a talent with numbers, trust me I know poker odds, so your not surprising me there, btw kk vs ace rag should win slightly more then 2 times in three but its close enough to the mark, so I probably shouldn't not pick there.
When I say it seems I lose with KK v AX more then I should, I mean it seems to me that I am losing more then 1 time in three there.
and unless I am short stacked I am not calling of all my chips with KK if i have seen a flop and seen an A. Just thought I would avoid that one to before we got there.